[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:35:59 -0600
Message-id: <07BC9977-A945-4E0D-88F4-6A30003F6346@xxxxxxx>

On Jan 23, 2009, at 12:14 PM, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I dont know, but as relationships are logical expressions

Er... no. Relationships (AKA "relations') are in the world.

Sure, of course, but ontologies are descriptions and representations
of the world, not the world

Of course. But you were saying, above, that relationships were logical expressions, not that ontologies were logical expressions. 

The relationship would hold between the
things, even if nothing had ever mentioned it or described it.

thats my point, although to describe a relationship you need some
formalism, hence logic

Well, no, you can describe relations in English, without formalizing anything. That is indeed how traditional philosophical ontology is done, in fact. Which I think is where Chris was coming from in his discussion with you.

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>